11.30.2008

Tax and Spend Liberal vs. Spend, Spend, Spend Some More Conservative

For those who know me or have read my blogs, you know I pride myself on being fiercely independent.  I don't prescribe to any camp's unchallenged principles.  So it should come as no surprise where this post comes from.   You see, I keep hearing conservatives declare President-elect Barack Obama and the Democratic party as "tax and spend liberals".  I'm curious to hear more from these people, so I hope they will take the time to read this blog.  

First of all, it seems rather responsible to me that if I'm going to spend more money than I did yesterday, then I need to make sure I have more money coming in today.  So, "tax and spend" sounds rather responsible.   Why do conservatives like to turn it into a bad thing?   What makes their spend, spend, spend more, and cut taxes a better financial plan?  That logic is like buying a house, a boat, two cars, and a dog then going to your boss and say "please cut my salary, I'm making too much money".    No private citizen in their right mind would do such a thing, yet conservatives across the board think this is a sound financial policy for the US government.


Second, has no one paid attention that we have two - not just one, but TWO - wars going on?  I find it hard to believe that the old men in power don't realize that war, even one as contained as Iraq is expensive.  How do you pay for such an endeavor?  Osmosis?  Debt just comes and goes away like a magic carpet?  Now we have a financial crisis that we just sank $1T into (yes that 1 with 12 zeros behind it), so where will this money come from?  Please Mr. Limbaugh or Mr. O'Reilly, please explain how we get this $1,000,000,000,000,000 and counting and cut taxes, or do you not care about our children and don't mind pushing the debt off to them?   Can anybody in the GOP camp explain this to me?


Finally, the one thing that really gets my goat about the GOP direction and its hypocritical portrayal of liberals is they seem to have less vision than a blind man.   If we followed their mantra, we'd have to wait until somebody bombs us before we take terrorism seriously and put air marshalls in the sky (or increase airport security, both of which increase airline expenses), we have to wait until there's massive voter fraud before we implement a solution, we have to wait until the polar ice caps have completely melted before we acknowledge there is an environmental danger in our midst.    By that time - it is too late.  

So please somebody explain the conservative agenda to me because I'm not understanding.  Any and all comments will be welcomed and read.   

Thank you.

11.29.2008

Down with the BCS! The Pres (elect) Wants a Tournament!

Yes, and so do I!   

Why can't we have a tournment in College Football? I understand there's lots of money and contracts involved and the perennial bowl teams don't want anything to upset their cash flow. But....  The fans want a bonafide champion - someone we can all agree on, and the only way to do that is with a tournament.  The NCAA can still have their bowl games, but give me a concrete way to determine a champion.  Here's what I propose:

We'll have a 12 team tournament, 8 automatic bids from the major conferences and 4 at-large births.  To receive an automatic bid, the major conferences will have to have a championship game - that means you Big 10.  The remaining 4 at-large births would be from other conferences, and should include any Division I school that is undefeated (provided their schedule meets certain criteria).  

So, here's how the schedule would flow:
First week of December:  Conference Championships
Second week of December: Minor bowl games (all 12 tournament teams get a bye week)
Third week of December:  More minor bowl games, lowest 8 seeds in the tournament play their first game.  (top 4 seeds get another bye)
Fourth week of December:  Winners of the first round play the remaining 4 teams 
First week of January: Semi-finals
Second week of January: Championship game

This would yield several advantages

1) The winner would generally be undisputed, much like NCAA basketball
2) It will now be possible for a football team to go from worst to first (right now it takes YEARS for that to happen)
3) More people would watch more games in a tournament
4) The teams won't be so rusty (remember Ohio State in 2006? They waited 45 days between games and were they ever rusty!)
5) And yes, they can keep their bowl games intact!


The BCS seems content with the current arrangement though and that's unfortunate.  They would have a happier fan base and make more money with a tournament.  

11.28.2008

Where Do YOU Stand?

Those who don't stand for something will fall for anything


I found this site just yesterday called whereistand.com.  Very interesting as it challenges you to take a stand on the issues we face and you get to see other opinions from "regular people" as opposed to opinions from alledged experts and talking heads.   

If something is on your mind, let out on whereistand.com.  

What do YOU stand?

11.11.2008

It Has Begun

I found this story today about a teacher's aide in Alison Park, PA who apparently went on a racist rant in front of a student.  How sad this small man is even in the teaching profession, and even worse influencing kids.  

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/cnn-news/17956560/detail.html

Not just once, but twice, on consecutive days this fool went on with racist cantations about the nation changing the flag to the KFC flag and changing the national anthem.  

So it has begun.... The daggers are out and Jim Crow is looking for Barrack Obama.  The great irony?  Obama is trying to unite us all - haters and congratulators.  I do pray for Mr. Obama often, and I can only trust he is in good hands.  With that said, I'm looking forward to serving my country in whatever fashion Mr. Obama asks.  

To those who hate for the sake of hating - get out of our way.  The world is passing you by, and I don't really care if you get on the train or not.  I'd rather have you onboard, but if you choose to sulk and hate those who are different from you, then for all I care, you can step in front of the train and we'll run you over.  

...

I know I said I'd have only one blog about the 2008 election, but I have one more.  You see, I find watching great collapses fascinating.  I like to read the business news and watch Sprint Nextel fall all over themselves.  I like to see how bad a football team can really get (as long as they aren't my team).  You get the idea.  So it should come as no surprise that I'm fascinated by the total ineptitude of the McCain campaign.  It wasn't necessarily a classic collapse - McCain never held a significant lead in the poll, but it was still fun to watch.  

First of all, why oh why do Republicans continue to harp on lower taxes and smaller government as if the American people are stupid?   We have two wars, not just one, and war of any magnitude is expensive.  So why cut taxes for the sake of cutting taxes when you need that income to finance this "war on terror"?   If smaller government is the best of ideas, why are we issuing $1T in cash to ailing banks?  Why do we have yet another government agency in the Department of Homeland Security (remember, the DHS wasn't created to replace any agency but to facilitate sharing information between various agencies).   The GOP mantra has long been to "let the markets prevail", meaning government should get out of the way.   Why then are we interfering now?  Business involves risk - and lots of it, and companies know this.  We are making a bad situation worse with this inconsistent message.   If the Feds are to stay out of Corporate America in boom times, it should also stay out of Corporate America in bust times, or at the very least require some accountability if we are to issue "bridge loans".    

And that leads me to the McCain-Palin ticket.  I won't rehash what was previously stated in other blogs, but I would point out how fun it was to watch McCain grasp for anything in trying to get elected.   I mean, Bill Ayers?  McCain was seriously trying to link a 9-year old Obama who was probably living overseas at the time - with a radical terrorist who blew up buildings in the US.    I've watched a lot of campaigns in my time and this is the best McCain can come up with??For the record Obama was serving on an education committee with Bill Ayers - one of the first committees Obama ever served on and it was a committee supported by Ronald Reagan cronies at that.    Even McCain called Ayers a washed-up terrorist.  So then why is it such a concern?  Why keep harping on it?  

As for Sarah Palin, she was issued a royal insult and she's so gullible she didn't even know it.  Her only qualification is the fact she's a "fellow maverick" like John McCain.  Of all the very plausible female candidates, Mr. McCain chose the one candidate who not only never met a foreign leader but apparently thinks Americans are stupid enough to believe that Alaska's proximity to Russia's Siberian outback somehow gives her foreign policy expertise.  Not only was she unable to quantify her resume, making her fodder for late night TV, but she amplifies it by appearing on Saturday Night Live.   If I were a woman, I would have been quite insulted by McCain - expecting me to vote for him just because a woman is on the ticket - not because she's the best candidate for vice president.  Apparently, from some of the exit polls I read, that's exactly how Mrs. Palin was perceived by many women.  If McCain wanted to ensure history was made, why wasn't some other, more viable female politicians chosen - Elizabeth Dole, Christine Whitman, and Condoleeza Rice all come to my mind.  At least they all have something more to offer.   The point:  Palin brought nothing substantial to the ticket, just celebrity fluff.  

That'll be my last word on the 2008 election - maybe.... 

NPR Topics: News